I too am lolling at all the folks saying "oh the kid totally wanted it". Thirteen year olds are stupid, have you all forgotten that already?http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

I think Angel has a good point about sexual socity between men and women. The more women a guy sleeps with the bigger hero he is going to be with his group, it's not true for all guys, but it is to a big number.

Weither this kid had a strong sexual impulse at the time I would not know, and it is that impulse that would have made it easy to make the move on him, but because the kid does not know any better being only 13, he may have given consent not knowing what he was doing.

if not out of sexual impuls, he could have indulged in his pride saying "wait till the guys hear about this!"

What ever the reason, the woman involed most likely targeted this boy for his naive age.

http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gifYeah but what does that have to do with a woman preying on an idiot kid? That's like saying that women walking alone are gonna get raped because _______.

lollin' so bad :tpg:

"hai i'm from internet i'm here to have sex with your son"
"I'll bring the camera!"

:tpg:

Stupid or no, a 13 year old should have the capacity to determine whether something is right or wrong. (Then again, his mother obviously wasn't much of a teacher to allow something like this to take place.) He made a choice to willingly participate in sexual acts with the adult, which makes the 'rape' part of this case difficult to define. Child exploitation seems more likely as a heading.
I am not saying that the kid isn't a dummy, as most children are not quite fully functioning at 13, but should a case like this be defined as rape if the boy willingly allowed it and wasn't harmed in the process?

I mean, when I was around that age, I was already sexually active. I also knew what I liked and didn't like. In that, I had all the necessary means to make choices for myself. I think too much emphasis is being placed on this 22 year old as being predatory. Was the boy truly the 'prey' in this situation? The kid knew what he was doing. While this may be untrue, and evenso, such relationships are well defined within our own society as being 'bad' but greatly vary from culture to culture.

The question is, who is right and who is wrong?

Are you fucking daft? Rape is the act of forcing sex on an non-consenting party. Statutory rape exists because minors are categorically considered incapable of offering consent. Especially with adults.

13 year olds do not exactly know right from wrong. Hell, lots of people never stop developing their own personal moralities, but 13 is sure as fuck not an age where we should be burdening people with those kinds of dilemmas.

I am right, lurker is right, Dev is right, and you are out of your fucking mind if you think that 13 year olds can make informed decisions concerning sexual behavior.

This woman is, without a doubt, the predator, because she is taking advantage of somebody else's weakness for the sake of her own gratification.

Rape is quite explicit in specifying lack of consent. Child exploitation does not even mention consent.

Rape is there because the mental image of a 13 year old girl being raped sells newspapers. Thirteen year old boys don't know what the fuck they are doing (fuck, nineteen year old boys don't know what they're doing), and she knew as much, but she was too horny to care.

Child molesters aren't imprisoned for life or murdered for tearing some skin and ligaments in a girl's pussy.

Harm is emotional and mental harm. His dick may be sore for a few days afterward but there's a kid growing up with completely false ideas about sexuality and relationships to women. That is harm, that is abusing a child, because sexuality and relationships are a very large part of of a person's life and destroying both like that is wrong.

No need to talk to me like one of your whores. I don't appreciate your violent outbursts. (You know, for a mod, you sure act like a 13 year old.) I realize that there is a difference between rape and statutory rape but I am still inclined to think one is much more offensive and destructive than the other, at least in this particular case.

I largely agree with what you are saying. But, who exactly, knows right from wrong? Do you? Do you really think that ALL people at the age of 18 are all of a sudden hit with a smart stick which imparts upon them good judgment? This isn't always the case. Each case is different. That is all that I am saying.

Your smugness amuses me. :)

That is likely. However, the boy was also part of this equation so lets not assume that he didn't know what he was doing merely because he's 13. The law will not see it as such so I guess it makes no difference either way.

Sometimes its difficult to determine the legality of certain features of the written law. It seems that each region approaches this framework differently and as a result, the terminology gets somewhat confusing.

So what would think of a culture besides ours where the marriage age is 13? What would you think of a culture in which 13 year olds are married to much older men all the time with little incident?

I see what you mean and well put.

I am sorry if you do not feel that my Righteous Fury is appropriate for somebody who wants to redefine the severity of rape (i.e. you)

Yeah and everything is relative and nothing is the same, and if we could actually afford to determine on a case-by-case basis whether this minor is more mentally developed than this minor, then farts would be made of doves.

I am going out on a limb here, to put my foot down and declare: "Statutory Rape is wrong, in all cases."

Using somebody's weaknesses in order to extract juicy feelgood juice is always predatory, or did SirVG not skeev you out?

If you mean cultures like the arabs, then I don't think much of them. Especially not the countries where the Age of Consent is 9 because Mohammad who is great popped one of his wife's cherry at that age.

I would say that they have the worst quality of live, lowest life expectancy, lowest literacy rates, highest rates of malnourishment, infant deaths, and the highest percentage of population in military service. In short, they are uncivilized, uneducated, unemployed, war-mongering, and shit-eating apes.

How's that?
Name one good aspect a culture which forces 13 year old children to take on the responsibilities of grown women.

Terminology is a problem with all law, but I was quite clear when I said "Rape is quite explicit in specifying lack of consent. Child exploitation does not even mention consent."

Children do not understand consent, and hence there can not even be any discussion of consent. The adult is always in control, and if she or he chooses to abuse this control, they are sick and twisted individuals.

I am not trying to redefine the severity of rape, which I believe is a term which involves sexual brutality against the will of another. I think all will agree that rape is barbaric. However, I just don't understand why the line is drawn where it is in regards to statutory rape. Thats why I have fine folks such as yourself to help with ma edumacation. Thanks. <3

LOL. Of course. I am choosing to look beyond what we can afford though I understand why the law exists to help protect 'minors'. The golden standard doesn't necessarily imply that its without flaw.

Bollocks. I don't buy that argument. The principle of using somebody's weakness to maligned benefit happens everyday in the world of dating and even marriage, regardless of age. A weakness can be categorized as any number of things. People take advantage of others ALL THE TIME and have done so since the beginning of time, even to extract 'juicy feelgood juice'.

Weakness is a term which holds questionable principle, determined by morals of society. While I appreciate the laws as they exist in my own society, I am not brash enough to admit that it makes another culture wrong.

I didn't mean anyone in particular. though its interesting (and somehow unsurprising) to see that you don't think much of them.

I don't understand where you would get off determining someone's life for them from your own little comfortable perch. I mean lets not kid ourselves here, we are ALL war-mongering, shit-eating apes. Our society may be technologically advanced, but there is but a thin stretch of road separating ourselves from what some believe to be uncivilized societies.

That aside, our quality of life is very different from others. We enjoy the many amenities of a technological society, and greatly benefit from them. Yes, WE are so well educated that we have just about the worst educational system on the planet, but whose keeping track? Yes, we are so peaceful that we have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq but thats neither here nor there. MEH. Its nice that our culture seems so evolved, but without the ability to respect the views of other cultures, it doesn't seem like it means much.

Not good, unfortunately.

Good? Good according to what? Good according to your own perspective of a healthy, meaningful existence? Your statements are biased. I think its fair not to assume that anyone is worse off than we are simply on account that they practice different customs that we don't happen to understand and/or agree with.

One other thing to consider about statutatory rape is that it isn't an error on the part of the younger party for being immature, but the crime is charged against the older party, who should have known better and who should not be preying on the weaknesses of children.

Many statutory rape laws have an exception if the parties are less than 2 years different in age, i.e. the same level of immaturity/stupidity.

What really makes statutory rape such a sickening crime is the old preying on the inexperience of the young.http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif

If statutory rape wasn't barbaric, then it wouldn't be called rape. The reason it's considered to be barbaric, is because societies with high standards of living can afford to extend childhood throughout adolescence. Allowing adults to fuck teens is uncivilized because they don't have to, and therefore shouldn't. If there are no external factors which justify kid diddling, like life expectancies of 28, then the act itself is entirely unnecessary, and becomes just plain wrong.

Rape isn't merely defined in physical violence. The negative impact emotionally and mentally are catastrophic when it comes to teens, because it impacts their development so drastically, and not for the better.

The flaw, however, is immaterial. Minors are defined as being undeveloped as a group, because a mountain of psychological, sociological, and biological evidence demonstrates it as such. Is it ok if an adult is on the mental level of the 15 year old he or she is boning? That's the kind of intellectual luxury that should be afforded only for hypotheticals, and not something to be bandied about in regards to a real case. If we consider the possibility that what has happened might be ok, then we lose any semblance of moral solidarity, since the idea spreads and generates debate.

It is wrong in all cases, predatory in all cases, because the majority of scientific and cultural thinking say so. Though I see you're now going to try and say that it isn't predatory...

How enlightened of you. However, taking advantage of weakness for one's personal gain is predatory. The reason that an adult taking advantage of another adult within reasonable bounds isn't illegal, is because adults are capable of defending themselves.

Children cannot defend themselves. They are incapable of saying "no" and incapable of exerting will. Neus said it himself that in a child/adult relationship, the adult is always in control, and if that control is used at the expense of the child it is always predatory, always wrong. You cannot argue this.

There really isn't much well to think of Arab culture, despite your claims of an intellectual high ground. Between the petty tribalism and the inability to maintain an infrastructure, cultures that are predominantly arab will never be able to advance beyond the dark ages. Arab countries that do enjoy good standards of living do so because they either have tons of oil, or they have become much more Westernized.

The Persians would be running circles around the Middle East if they weren't saddled with a theocracy, and in many ways they already are.

What's the point of having one of these threads every six months, other than identifying the current crop of gf pedos?

I'd go so far as to say there isn't anything wrong with a 13/22 pair, although it's a signal that there's something deeply wrong with the 22 year old if they can find fulfillment beyond a one-off gratification in a 13-year-old punk. It's enormously stupid, and the kid will realize this when the sexual high wears off and suddenly there's no money (or worse, a baby shows up), but your teens are all about doing incredibly stupid things that you thought were brilliant ideas at the time. At least mine were. Assuming she has no STDs, it's probably a lot safer sort of stupid than making your own flaming arrows or "baking" clay sculptures on a bbq. (Funny how most of my childhood memories involve fire or mud or both.) You can't even say that it's going to damage the kid or warp his views on women, unless you have a psychology degree and personally interviewed him (or have a transcript from someone who did). Sure it's possible, just like it's possible he'll come out better for it.

The only things you can really say about it are "she should have known better" and "what the hell is up with the mom jesus".

You know it's the truth, don't step out without your burqa or no one's gonna protect you, woman.

Heh, I am not saying that at all. I am not saying, "Lets allow kiddie fiddlers to have their fun and destroy lives in the process." I am just saying in this particular instance that I am having difficulty ascertaining a clear cut predator/prey. I understand your stance and you understand mine so no further clarification is needed.

That is a fair point. I think I've seen the practicality of your arguments and thank you for sharing them. In truth, I don't have much reason to argue against your statements but its nice to see your reasoning. I agree with many of your points as they are implicitly stated above.

Hmmm. I didn't look at it from that point of view but that makes sense. I should have considered it a bit more in regards to the case posted by the OP.

I agree that law does make it seem easier to keep society within specific boundaries. It is true that the law isn't perfect and can never be expected to be, but in most cases it proposes a guideline which keeps a sense of order. I do agree that relationships between children and adults is wrong but I am willing to look at this case differently as it seems highly different than that of normal cases of this type. In that, I thought that perhaps a different approach might be relevant. It is becoming clear that it isn't warranted.

...It isn't predatory. (mwa) No, I am not going to beat upon this bush any longer. I must admit I haven't much to say contradicting your thoughts thus far.

I was probably nitpicking unintentionally. I am well enough aware that adults and children cannot be held to the same mental, physical standard.

Intellectual highground doesn't have much to do with it. Your comments seemed to be seeded with anger and racism. If at all, I am sorry I jumped the gun. However, I am still willing to be respectful and openminded of cultures outside of my own. Sometimes, I feel that perspective of others can better help me understand myself and my own culture, which is largely a reason as to why I use culture as a means to enter this argument. You can call me "enlightened" all you like, but its simply what I believe.

Yeah, I guess you could come out better from it in the same sense that somebody who has been mugged learns to buy a gun (LOL).

However, I don't see how you can say:
And then call it stupid, while calling the mentality of the mother and the woman in question.

If there is nothing wrong with the situation, why is there something wrong with the adults?

If there is no victim, then why should the adult know better? What is there to know better in a case where nobody has been harmed? There shouldn't be any reason to know better, unless it endangers the parties, and if it does so, how can it not be wrong?

Well now let's put this into perspective: I said that there's not much to think of arabs for things like the belief that Mohammad is the Gold Standard of human behavior, and therefore fucking a 9 year old can't be wrong because Mohammad did it. You thought that could have been racist?

Well lets see here.

Primarily because you offered an appraisal of a society that wasn't previously mentioned. As I mentioned, I wasn't referring to arabs specifically and yet you went out of your way to speak your displeasure with their customs by the principle that they differ from our own.

Secondly, this story involving Mohammed holds little merit for Islam as a whole. What you refer to is an outdated text which isn't largely supported by Islam in any way shape or form in modern times, at least in regards to marriage age. That is, marriage of girls at 9 is not common to the culture, as a whole. You were referring to arabs (or more notably islams as not every arab is bound to take heart with the teachings of Mohammed) and casting them all in one lump sum of rampant stupidity. Thats not fair. In that way of thinking, you have made a judgment according to a limited viewpoint for its own sake. However, I see that your intent may have not been to cast these people in an unfavourable light just for a cheap laugh, though instinct tells me a different story. If you aren't racist, then feel free to ignore my statements.

Are you seriously saying that a boy, who knows that orgasms are fun, was seducing an adult?
http://colonelskills.belkanairforce....ages/ace/1.gif
What sort of demented asshole are you?

I am glad you think so highly of Japan and Spain where the federal age of consent is 13...

It is insane that the mother let all of this happen in her own home.

It doesn't matter much what you "feel is right or wrong" the law is pretty cut and dry on this matter. She did things with a minor that society deems inappropriate and now she will pay the price of her actions.

I'm just saying from my perspective, not everything that can hurt someone is wrong even if it's illegal. Irreparable harm is wrong, and this kind of relationship can cause that, I'm not denying, but just saying that's not necessarily the case. The woman knew what the consequences were and was stupid for risking them brazenly, and pathetic for falling for kornbix over here that she knew wouldn't (couldn't?) turn her down. I'm only saying that because a lot of people are implying that this kid is now fucked for life, that this situation automatically confers irreparable harm on someone. Or I'm just misreading.

I'm not privy to the psychological evaluations to say how wrong the adult was. The most damaging consequences of pedophilia come from adults convincing children that they are ugly, dirty, shameful little creatures that no one can love, either carefully manipulated to feel only the molester can understand and love them or simply humiliating them into submission, and that if the relationship is revealed it'll be the child who will be punished and outcast. That's when it ruins lives and leads to severe psychological problems. It doesn't sound like that's the case at all here, given how brazen it all was, but who knows.

On the other hand, the mother's there to look out for the child's best interests, which as this thread so aptly points out, aren't going to be served by a 22 year old mooch, even if she brings da hooch. She's old enough to know a little pussy probably isn't going to do her son much good long-term when he should be studying and socializing, and more importantly, that there's a major chance that everyone involved could get in a great deal of trouble, like they did.

Gumby, in most of Japan it's 18. 13 is the federal limit, but only in force in the bumfuck redneck prefectures.

The cop in the newscast is a buzzkill. He should be saying:

YouTube Video

"Police say this is just another example of the dangers that come with technology."

Yeah, fucking technology. We outta make some rules to idiot-proof the world and save people from the hassle of thinking for themselves.

The reporter called the game "runscape" using a short U. lolzzzzzzzzzzzz!

I was a bit overzealous in that regard, and no it is not guaranteed that he'll be fucked up for life, or even significantly harmed in the short term. However, the danger of that harm is significant enough to warrant protections across the board.

The most significant harm, however, involves how the experience would affect the kid's personality. Half the people in this thread insist that he'll be placed on some kind of Pedestal of Machismo, and you think that's gonna be good for him?

What your logic inevitably arrives at, is that if something is not wrong, then why should it be illegal?